A different take on global warming

[TC]

Re: A different take on global warming

Interesting.

Many experiments have demonstrated that the rate of plant growth is
largely governed by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As atmospheric
CO2 increases, the growth rate of plants increases dramatically.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the basic food for all plants, and since plants
provide the food for animal life (including humans), CO2 is the base of the
food chain for all life forms on Earth. The present level of CO2 in the
atmosphere is low by historical standards. If atmospheric CO2 is
significantly reduced, it is more likely that slower plant growth could affect
world food supplies while having little effect on global warming. The life of
all plants and animals on Earth is dependent on CO2 for food and oxygen.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the staff of life for our plane

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on global warming

I don't know if I buy the dis-crediting of the CFC's as not effecting the O-zone layer. The hole is atmospherically driven though by upper atmosphere currents and the rotation of the Earth, so yeah it's been there for ever, but it's not to say that CFC's aren't a cataylist for O3 destruction, that HAS been scientifically/chemically proven. Temperature is fickle, like water evaporating well before it's boiling point, it just slows the reaction, doesn't necessarily stop it.

I forget the report, but when I was talking Biology the report I read implied that the limiting factor of plant growth in the Equatorial Rain Forests is CO2. Namely the plants have available more water than they need, more sunlight than they need, and more soil nutrients, what they are primarily lacking is CO2. One problem is people are wiping out the plants for other land use, but even then we're still putting more CO2 in the atmosphere than plants in our current climate regime can process.

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on globel warming

I'm surprised he didn't quote Hansen, the Chief Climatologist for NASA, anywhere in there. That guy too is a bias political hack of a scientist. I've read Hansen's reports on his "Global Warming Computer Models" and they are sooooooooo skewed by his personal beliefs it can hardly be called a scientific paper. Not that a computer model can actually count as a scientific test, it's a best guess by the programmer, and Hansen's models are 50% his gut feelings or he uses some lame excuse why real world data doesn't fit his model so he'll change a number until the model predicts what he wants to see. The leadership at the NOAA and associated support colleges are just as bias, look at the hurricane forecasts for the last five or so years against how many we've had. (I'll tell you we've had average or fewer when they keep saying that we'll be getting well above average every year because of Global Warming). Eh, I'm going to stop here, I could go on all night here :P

I just thought I'd dredge this one up because yet AGAIN the hurricane forecast has been lowered.

http://money.aol.com/article/us-forecasters-lower-atlantic-hurricane/606199

I really should just let this one die, but it's a personal peeve of mine. The NOAA is completely bias, which makes for poor science.

http://news.aol.com/article/hurricane-season-has-been-a-dud-andmdash/667137

My personal pet peeve rears it's head again. I was looking for a post that listed a similar article for 2008 (I know there is one, I'm just not sure if I posted it somewhere). Always predicting an above average Hurricane season then back pedalling half way through the season. So far for the last five years (at least) they've predicted above average, then we've actually had below average to right on average.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/hurricane-season-predictions-call-for-heavy-weather-in-2010/19336359

[malc]

Re: A different take on global warming

Climate change advocats are getting a bashing here in Europe, they have made too much up or ignored facts to the contrary.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...melt-away.html

No one seems to be able to say what the "right" climate seems to be.

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on global warming

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: 'These reports do not appear to be peer-reviewed, but are produced by campaigning organisations which are known to exaggerate problems. It is a clear indication that they are using the wrong literature.'

I don't have the article on hand, but a week or two ago in an article about the Himalayan Glaciers, one of the IPCC "scientist" that helped put the report together is quoted as saying a bulk of the papers cited in the IPCC report are not peered reviewed articles (and he goes on to say that's not a problem!). If that isn't a red flag on accuracy I don't know what is, especially in the scientific community. Any friggin person in the world can write a paper claiming anything,with or with out facts to back it up, and these guys will use it if it backs up their claims (the Himalayan Glacier issue is a prime example).

[fine59]

Re: A different take on global warming

global warming my ass...most snow here in 20 years this weekend, come'on global warming.

[Barry Donovan]

Re: A different take on global warming

futuristic guesses are to doubt, but history accurately written is undoubtable.

I still blame the crazy years of ozone disappearingn egr valves. hermaphrodited constipation poison babble.


this is a site with some good stuff written, they do not make predictions, the goal is history written.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

and FYI..maine for january 2010 never saw below -5F..it is a warm one for my locvation, even northwest part of the state in the hills.
do not get fooled by snow in a tiny band of planet earth getting snow unusually. Cold moves because warm moved it there..this is not good.

I know as a routine of a warm maine january to keep the a/c ready to go for this summer.


and plant a tree, and hug it and stuff, sing lullabies. :

[98ciHemi]

Re: A different take on global warming

hermaphrodited constipation poison babble.

Oh man....

[std]

Re: A different take on global warming

hermaphrodited constipation poison babble.

Oh man....

What? You can say that again, Walt. Maybe I've had too many cocktails tonight.....

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on globel warming

I'm surprised he didn't quote Hansen, the Chief Climatologist for NASA, anywhere in there. That guy too is a bias political hack of a scientist. I've read Hansen's reports on his "Global Warming Computer Models" and they are sooooooooo skewed by his personal beliefs it can hardly be called a scientific paper. Not that a computer model can actually count as a scientific test, it's a best guess by the programmer, and Hansen's models are 50% his gut feelings or he uses some lame excuse why real world data doesn't fit his model so he'll change a number until the model predicts what he wants to see. The leadership at the NOAA and associated support colleges are just as bias, look at the hurricane forecasts for the last five or so years against how many we've had. (I'll tell you we've had average or fewer when they keep saying that we'll be getting well above average every year because of Global Warming). Eh, I'm going to stop here, I could go on all night here :P

I just thought I'd dredge this one up because yet AGAIN the hurricane forecast has been lowered.

http://money.aol.com/article/us-forecasters-lower-atlantic-hurricane/606199

I really should just let this one die, but it's a personal peeve of mine. The NOAA is completely bias, which makes for poor science.

http://news.aol.com/article/hurricane-season-has-been-a-dud-andmdash/667137

My personal pet peeve rears it's head again. I was looking for a post that listed a similar article for 2008 (I know there is one, I'm just not sure if I posted it somewhere). Always predicting an above average Hurricane season then back pedalling half way through the season. So far for the last five years (at least) they've predicted above average, then we've actually had below average to right on average.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/hurricane-season-predictions-call-for-heavy-weather-in-2010/19336359

This isn't government, it's Accu-weather, but I like how they predict an "Extreme" season of Seven Hurricanes when Six per year is historic average :

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/hurricane-season-could-be-extreme-accuweather-forecaster-says/19392418

[IndyShiftman]

Re: A different take on global warming

Environmental Hysteria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on global warming

Penn and Teller rule! :D

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on global warming

Another prediction made for a "more active than average" hurricane season.

http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/more-potential-fuel-for-atlantic-hurricanes-this-year/19434512

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: A different take on globel warming

I'm surprised he didn't quote Hansen, the Chief Climatologist for NASA, anywhere in there. That guy too is a bias political hack of a scientist. I've read Hansen's reports on his "Global Warming Computer Models" and they are sooooooooo skewed by his personal beliefs it can hardly be called a scientific paper. Not that a computer model can actually count as a scientific test, it's a best guess by the programmer, and Hansen's models are 50% his gut feelings or he uses some lame excuse why real world data doesn't fit his model so he'll change a number until the model predicts what he wants to see. The leadership at the NOAA and associated support colleges are just as bias, look at the hurricane forecasts for the last five or so years against how many we've had. (I'll tell you we've had average or fewer when they keep saying that we'll be getting well above average every year because of Global Warming). Eh, I'm going to stop here, I could go on all night here :P

I just thought I'd dredge this one up because yet AGAIN the hurricane forecast has been lowered.

http://money.aol.com/article/us-forecasters-lower-atlantic-hurricane/606199

I really should just let this one die, but it's a personal peeve of mine. The NOAA is completely bias, which makes for poor science.

http://news.aol.com/article/hurricane-season-has-been-a-dud-andmdash/667137

This journalist is an idiot, or at least doesn't fact check anything:

In fact, the three private outlets mentioned here, along with the federal government's Climate Prediction Center, all correctly predicted that the 2009 season would be less active than the 2008 season.

What he fails to mention is they forecasted that half way through the season, not before hurricane season started. :

http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/consensus-growing-for-active-hurricane-season/19449448

The article does mention that typically after an El Nino there are more hurricanes, so I'll give them that, we maybe due, but then again the expert climatologist have been very poor in predicting El Nino's and their complimentary La Nina's too.

[Monk]

Re: A different take on global warming

Don't shit where you eat

Does that apply to buffalo
and goats?

;D